Share this story

In this week's PNAS, researchers at UC Berkeley and the University of Toronto tackle a topic that is bound to spark controversy. I'll let the title speak for itself: "Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior." The paper describes the results of seven studies—two field studies and five experimental tests—that sought to explore how socioeconomic status (SES) correlates with behavior that most of us would consider ethical.

Trying to reason out the impact of social status could send you running in circles. Could lower SES motivate individuals towards increased unethical behavior as a result of fewer resources and greater threat and uncertainty? Alternately, might higher SES and the greater resources and freedom that brings result in relaxed ethical attitudes? To figure out what was going on, the researchers performed a mix of controlled and real-world experiments.

The first two studies looked at whether SES could predict driving behavior, using the make, age, and appearance of vehicles as a marker for SES. (In other words, shiny new BMWs were assumed to be driven by high-status individuals.) The first looked at whether SES affected a driver's tendency to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way stop in the San Francisco Bay Area. Even when controlled for time of day, the driver's perceived sex and age, and traffic, high SES individuals were significantly more likely to cut off other drivers.

The same effect was apparent when they looked at if SES affected whether a driver was more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk. Higher SES individuals were significantly more likely to do so.

Next, the researchers turned to controlled experiments. Participants were asked to read different scenarios of people unrightfully benefiting or taking something. Then they were asked how likely they would be to do the same thing. High SES participants were significantly more likely to report that they would engage in these unethical behaviors.

Study number four involved participants rating themselves on the SES scale to heighten their perception of status; they were then answered a number of questions relating to unethical behavior. At the end of the experiment, they were presented with a jar of individually wrapped candy and told that, although it was for children in a nearby lab, they could take some if they wanted. At this point you might be able to guess what the results were. High SES participants took more candy.

Attitudes toward greed were also examined. Study participants role-played a salary negotiation, acting as the employer. They were told before the negotiation that the job in question would would actually be eliminated in the near future. High SES participants were significantly less likely to be truthful about job stability, and significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes towards greed even when controlled for age, sex, ethnicity, religiosity, and political orientation.

The next study gave its participants the chance to cheat. The researchers let them play a computer game of chance (five rolls of a six-sided die), and asked them to report the results. Players were told them that they had an increased chance of a cash prize if they had higher scores, even though the game was actually fixed such that the total scores would always add up to 12. High SES positively predicted cheating, even when controlled in the same ways as the previous study.

The final test looked at whether encouraging positive attitudes towards greed would increase unethical tendencies in lower SES participants. These subjects were either neutrally primed by being asked to list three things about their day, or were positively primed by being asked to list three benefits of greed. Next, their attitude towards greed was assessed, and they were also questioned about their tendency to engage in unethical behavior at work (stealing, accepting bribes, overcharging).

By this point, you'll almost certainly surmise that positive priming for greed significantly increased favorable attitudes towards it, as well as unethical work behavior. Additionally, the higher a participant's SES, the more positive their attitudes were towards greed, and the greater chance they engaged in unethical behavior.

The researchers argue that "the pursuit of self-interest is a more fundamental motive among society's elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrongdoing." However, they point out that their findings aren't absolute, and that philanthropic efforts such as those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet buck the observed trend, as does research which has shown a relationship between poverty and violent crime.

194 Reader Comments

The idea of judging people's SES by the car they drive destroys a lot of their credibility in my eyes. Here in Iowa, we have numerous "Iowa Millionaires" that drive basic pick-up trucks and wear blue collar clothing. Unless you saw their financials, you'd have no idea they were millionaires from their outer appearance. Those guys, IMHO, are in-general tremendously ethical individuals of high SES that many of their experiments automatically culls out, greatly skewing the results.

IME, there is a strong correlation between highly-ethical people of wealth, and people who don't flaunt their net-worth.

What these experiments appear to have done is compared people who flaunt their wealth to people who don't. And anyone with common sense would agree that I-love-to-flaunt-my-value people are not the most ethical people. (Seriously. I can guarantee that some of those nice shiny BMW drivers are NOT of high SES, but rather people who are in-debt up their eyeballs with negative net-worth trying to make people think they are high SES)

I think the social repercussions of the unethical behavior is less for higher SES. You get cut alot of slack for behavior when you can make someone else considerable amounts of money.

I think you make an important point. Both because wealthy people can throw money at causes that give them positive social perception and because of the social perception that the ability to amass wealth relates to a person's industriousness, a person's wealth may somewhat offset the negative impacts of the unethical means used to amass the wealth. A wealthy scoundrel is perceived better than a scoundrel sans wealth.

Folks who see someone's wealth and think they can ride their coattails (whether they are in a position to actually do so is rather immaterial) is just another instance of wealth counteracting the effects of the means of achieving that wealth.

I think the categorical world that Dilbert (above) lives in is rather unnecessary but it seems reasonable to think that people who amass the greatest wealth (inheritors, on the other hand, are those who have the wealth but didn't do the amassing -- they can be unethical, spoiled, lazy too but they are not the people I'm talking about) are those who are driven to obtain it in absence of principles limiting what they will to satisfy the drive. There are countervailing social forces as well so it's not black and white.

So if you're really interested in money be good at obtaining it and you will be forgiven relative to the selfish lout who also really wants money but is thick as a brick.

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

Eh, I'm kind of leery about studies like these. Motives are hard to figure out and humans tend to be self-serving anyway. I'd still rather live in a rich neighborhood than a poor or even middle class one. The study can bite me - there's a lot less lead flying around in my part of town than the others.

Also, I disagree on the candy thing. If I was told that I could have some, I would assume that they had enough for everyone or might even have more than needed. Disclaimer: I'm poor as all hell and live with my parents.

Besides, I would hardly use Californians as the base group to judge society as a whole. No offense guys but you're almost as weird as New Jerseyeans.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

The research highlighted in the article does draw that conclusion. High SES, generally indicates "wealth". If you have high SES you're more likely to be unethical.

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no, but it's not wrong to say that the likelihood of you being unethical will be statistically higher.

So, you're either using doublespeak or being incredibly obtuse.

He's saying that correlation does not equal causation and arguing that maybe these people are rich because they're unethical or are more willing to bend rules. Are you more likely to be wealthy if you're willing to take more from the free sample bin or underpay employees? Maybe not but who knows.

My personal experience is that people who were born into the upper class are often very, very different than people who got from the middle to the upper class as adults. All I'll say is that I was on scholarship at a very expensive private college. Imagine all the stereotypes. Yes, saw 'em all. Saw some beautiful exceptions too, but they were decidedly in the minority.

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

It describes him to a T when he was younger and working on building his wealth. Or do you not know anything about him at all?

He found wizdom in his older days. He's in a kind of a unique situation actually. He has so much money he no longer needs to actively make more, or protect what he's got. It's just there for him.

While he was building his wealth he was the biggest prick on the block. Just ask Paul Allen.

Not to mention that setting up a foundation allows one to keep MORE CONTROL OVER THEIR WEALTH AND INHERITANCE OF THAT WEALTH. There are enormous tax advantages to what Bill G is doing. I am not going to say that is why he is doing what he is doing, as I don't know the man's heart. But please, can we take the blinders off and admit what he is doing will allow him and his heirs to keep more of their wealth then they would have with the estate tax, for just one example.

The only way we will know for sure, is after he dies. So we have to wait to see if he is the least self-centered most giving person in history.

So are rich people more likely to disobey traffic laws because they are less ethical people, or because they won't go broke paying a traffic ticket?

Doesn't matter, both reasons "break the social contract" and put others (and themselves) at an increased risk to injury. Also most states have mechanisms to mitigate your ability to just pay the fines, i.e. a points system (get so many points in x amount of time and lose your license).

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

The research highlighted in the article does draw that conclusion. High SES, generally indicates "wealth". If you have high SES you're more likely to be unethical.

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no, but it's not wrong to say that the likelihood of you being unethical will be statistically higher.

So, you're either using doublespeak or being incredibly obtuse.

That's a little harsh, considering the fact that I'm right.

Quote:

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no,

Correct. However, that's the claim the headline makes. Read it again.

Quote:

Also, if you go back in time, like to the era of Christ, you'll see that people were making the whole wealth leads to corruption argument waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Communism was even conceived.

Just to be super clear on this, because many people screw this quote up: The Bible says that "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." Money itself is not evil, it's the desire for it that is the problem. However, I'll certainly agree that power, which is often conferred by wealth, is a very strong corrupting influence.

+3 - correlation does not equal causation. This should be drummed into everyone's head in journalism school, because it's almost always abused.

But there is also another angle that several of these studies overlooked. The value of what the high SES people were taking vs their wealth, as compared to the value of what the lower SES people took compared to their wealth. Taking $50 when you're worth a few million won't feel like very much to you, and might be relatively akin to stealing a pen when you're only worth a few thousand. Not justifying either, just saying these experiments really only scratched the surface and could be misleading without additional context.

This is completely unscientific experiment and typical of hatchet jobs involving class warfare. SES "correlates" to 'ethical' behavior. What a load of shit!

First off, lets find a common ground on what constitutes 'ethical' behavior. We can't right? I don't consider cutting someone off in traffic under most circumstances wrong at all. The tools who did these studies evidently do. I hold doors open for people less than 5 steps behind me and I see a lot of people don't do that.

Second, how do they actually know you they were targeting the correct focus group? The "researchers" got sloppy on that one and assumed based on car types. I see social climbers that get BMWs to make it seem like they are rich and they are not.

News flash! There are assholes in every economic range. There are also selfless persons in every economic range too.

I am for research but this should not have been granted funds for this garbage.

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

Other than the fact that Bill Gates is relatively young he's a typical philanthropist: use any method available to amass tremendous wealth then, when you've got more than the next 4 generations could possibly spend, make yourself look good by giving lots away so people will hopefully forget the things you did to acquire it in the first place.

Like others have said the system is designed to concentrate wealth into the hands of those who already have lots. If you aren't born into wealth the only way to get it is to cheat the system. The guy in the BMW who cut you off probably bullied or tricked kids out of their lunch money too.

I disagree that it would be an self-interest only with society's elite its a common thing with middle class and poor. Self-interest is among all social levels, some people see it as managing if greed motivates they can gain more or get something done by someone other then themselves.

Could it be that everyone is self-interested to some extent, but those of "high SES" have more opportunity to exercise their self-interest, and can do so to a greater extent?

So are rich people more likely to disobey traffic laws because they are less ethical people, or because they won't go broke paying a traffic ticket?

Again an anecdote and a sample of one. Take it for what it is.

Let's talk about two affluent Seattle areas: Clyde Hill and Medina (Bill Gates lives there.) Median house price is over a million dollars. There are only two commercial entities there: a coffee shop and a gas station. The rest are rich folk's houses.

I go to the said coffee shop sometimes. It is just off the freeway. The parking lot is filled with expensive cars. They are parked sideways, across, diagonally.... whichever way but in between the lines. There are often Big Ass SUVs parked just outside the shop in the driveway and thus blocking everyone from leaving the parking lot until the occupants get their drinks and get back to the car.

I see this not sometimes. Not often. But all the time. This behavior is in stark contrast to nearby Bellevue and Kirkland, themselves an upper middle class neighborhoods, but not filthy rich. They know how to park outside a coffee shop.

None of those parking shenanigans are traffic violations. There is no ticket. They do it because they don't give a shit. Plain and simple.

I would suggest you've got the causality backwards, being unethical makes you wealthy, mostly I suspect because the rules are designed to keep power and money in the hands of those who already have it so to become wealthy or powerful you must break the rules. Perhaps this is a sign the we need to restructure those rules to make vertical economic and social mobility more ethically feasible.

The interesting thing is that an article I read about this yesterday implied the studies accounted for this and found that when someone's perception of their own SES went up, so too did the likelihood of their engaging in more questionably ethical behavior. That, to me, is something I'd like to see replicated or studied more in depth. It's probably the most important part of this finding, if accurate.

Someday I have to renew my alumnus membership so I can read all these in their original form rather than relying on news articles. Stupid paywalls.

Study Killer...The premise is flawed. Researchers are typically high income individuals. People are funding researchers. People usually have particular motives. Those particular motives usually seek particular outcomes (the tobacco industry did studies for years that said smoking didn't give you cancer). Researchers' research from two very prominent universities that are both very liberal and very well funded may very well have a particular motive. This is a *very* timely study given all of class warfare and occupy wall street stuff going on...that would also suggest that the release of this information has a motive and may be skewed. Some people gain wealth by screwing people over left and right, some people are greedy, some people are tool bags. Other people do it through honest, hard work, and don't fit this paradigm at all. And the study notes that, but they use a corrupt person to note it (Warren Buffet, see below).

They also assume that those people don't have motives and that greed only takes one form. Why did Bill Gates ever announce that he was giving away all this money instead of doing it anonymously? Is it bc he was greedy for recognition? Is it bc he wants to "leave a mark on the world" for being a philanthropist instead of a business mogul?

The study also says on its face that people were allowed to have candy? Is that unethical? Do kids have some kind on inherent right to candy? Maybe the people thought they should eat it bc many parents don't want their children to have candy, so they were doing the parents a favor. This study makes the error of assuming the motives of people. It also makes the implicit assumption that taking more candy equates with greed (money & assets presumably) for which no connection has been shown. After all, that jar could have been one of many jars of candy for the children, maybe the rich adults were just taking what they thought was their "fair share". Maybe they weren't told how many children were in the other room, or led to believe there were only a couple, or very few. Maybe they reasonably believed the size of the jar would not be good for a few children to eat the whole jar, so they took some home to their children, or ate some themselves. Or maybe the participants are smarter than the researchers and figured out what was going on. The possibilities for motives are nearly endless and the study doesn't really clear that up.

The study also implies greed is a bad thing. Heck, Ars Technica wouldn't exist without greed. See the advertising on the sidebar? Hmm...see the social icons, so you can tell more people to come to the site, so Ars can get more advertising revenue? Perhaps I've made the mistake of assuming their motivations? But if they were just writing this site for charity then they could make our page loads faster by removing the advertising, and the page would then also be less distracting. But I suppose they have to pay for servers, bandwidth, devs, writers, etc, so they choose to do these things. However, now they are greedy according to this study, because I can claim they are overcharging. What is overcharging, anyway? Isn't something worth whatever another individual or company is willing to pay for it? Isn't that why art pieces get sold for millions when they cost only a few dollars in materials? Because someone looks at intangible things like talent, effort, time spent (no one knows how long Picasso spent on each one of his paintings that have sold), and other factors, and places a "value" on them? Maybe everything should be free, but it isn't, because it takes resources to produce things. This is a classic double standard, researchers at prestigious universities greedy, all while bringing in higher than average incomes. Not only that, their salaries at a prestigious university are likely higher than that of a researcher at a less prestigious university. So aren't they as "greedy" as the next? This study is a joke. Shame on Ars for publishing it. BTW, I don't think Ars is greedy for having ads, I think they put value on the info they provide, and want to make money, like the rest of the world. Maybe they should just take the ads off of this page because the story is worthless.

What I'm saying: People who have high incomes aren't all corrupt or greedy. Some are, some aren't. And it is larger than Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. They aren't exact shining examples, even though we like to think they are bc of the AMOUNT. If they really wanted to be shining examples they could do good in secret, and not tell the world how wonderful they are, but instead just help people.

To the "Study": Using Warren Buffet as an ethical example of anything is a mistake. Buffett claims that his secretary pays more taxes than he does, so we need to reform the tax structure. However, Buffett lied, his secretary pays more in "normal" taxes, because she earns more salary than he does. Buffett failed to include all other forms of taxes. He did not include his dividends taxes, capital gains taxes, or the 1 billion dollars (US) that the company he owns owed in taxes (since most of his expenditures are paid for by his company). Lying is not really an honest or ethical thing to do, especially when you have a political motive.

What I am saying: It'd be interesting to see where these researchers got their funding from.

PS...I'm not rich. I'm not even wealthy. I'm not well-off, or anything else that describes having any significant amount of money. In fact, I have less than $500 in my bank account, $150,000 in student loan debt for my undergrad and law school, am still in school, live in an apartment with my wife, and drive a car with a total value under $7000 (a 2008 Chevy Aveo, as valued by the Commonwealth of Virginia on my personal property tax, bc I get taxed for owning things). So, it isn't that I'm some rich guy who wants to dispel the idea that rich people are greedy. I'm just trying to say people have motives and incentives for what they do.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

The research highlighted in the article does draw that conclusion. High SES, generally indicates "wealth". If you have high SES you're more likely to be unethical.

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no, but it's not wrong to say that the likelihood of you being unethical will be statistically higher.

So, you're either using doublespeak or being incredibly obtuse.

That's a little harsh, considering the fact that I'm right.

Quote:

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no,

Correct. However, that's the claim the headline makes. Read it again.

Quote:

Also, if you go back in time, like to the era of Christ, you'll see that people were making the whole wealth leads to corruption argument waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before Communism was even conceived.

Just to be super clear on this, because many people screw this quote up: The Bible says that "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil." Money itself is not evil, it's the desire for it that is the problem. However, I'll certainly agree that power, which is often conferred by wealth, is a very strong corrupting influence.

So you're going with both the doublespeak and obtuse option. Roger that.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

Except the experiments show that, when primed with thoughts of greed, even low SES individuals responded with less ethical behavior. Which does suggest causation. So, the article supports the headline, as a careful reading would have showed. Thank you, jcool, for ignoring the facts.

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

I don't think he deserves the "most generous individual in history" moniker. Not even close. Not even in the running.

By monetary value, he certainly has donated the most, although it would be interesting to compare Carnegie's endowments in adjusted dollars. But that this a rather biased metric.

Another way to look at it is, after giving away wealth, how much did the person have left. Gates still has billions of dollars in the bank and lives in one of the most impressive houses in the world. Other people have given absolutely everything away, including their own home, 100% of their retirement, and even gone into dept in order to help others.

So let me get this right, the old saying, "Money is the root of all evil", is true? Who would of thought...

The game is set up where the rich stay rich and most of the poor stay poor. The odds of your going from poor to rich are about the same as playing the lottery. Also ever hear of any of the rich Wall Street bankers being brought up on charges for the near economic collapse of 2008? Jon Stewert's segment put it best I think, " How the F#@k is it that Martha Stewart Went to Jail". Our laws, government, and system favor the rich. It is run by them.

"You need to be a self centered jerk with no empathy in order to amass the kind of wealth we are talking about."

Yup. Describes Bill Gates to a T. Well, except for the part about him being the least self-centered, most generous individual in history, but why let that spoil our bitter resentment of anyone who has more money than we do?

Then there's the parable about the poor person giving their last coin. I'm not going to disparage Gates for giving his money to charity. I think that's a good thing but I don't imagine he has any means to spend all his money on himself. At some point you get to the paradox of what is a moral act which isn't particularly useful. Just because someone gives away a lot of money when it still leaves them with a lot of money doesn't make them Albert Schweitzer. Personally, I find more character in acts that require some self-deprivation over those that are a person in abundance giving away some of their abundance.

I think it's good that Gates is giving to charity. I think people who see this is indicative of his character could bear being a little more skeptical.

This headline draws a conclusion that the article doesn't support. Thank you, Ars, for ignoring facts and jumping straight to the linkbait headline. ...and I thought Ars was big on scientific credibility.

As a poster above mentioned, these are behaviors and attitudes that can help you accumulate wealth.The traffic example is possibly the most obvious. Driven, Type A individuals are likely to put their needs above others and aggressively pursue their goals, whether it's getting someplace the fastest, or being successful financially.

TL;DR.. Correlation does not equal causation.

The research highlighted in the article does draw that conclusion. High SES, generally indicates "wealth". If you have high SES you're more likely to be unethical.

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no, but it's not wrong to say that the likelihood of you being unethical will be statistically higher.

So, you're either using doublespeak or being incredibly obtuse.

That's a little harsh, considering the fact that I'm right.

Quote:

Are you somehow magically compelled to be unethical if you have wealth? Well, duh, no,

So let me get this right, the old saying, "Money is the root of all evil", is true? Who would of thought...

The game is set up where the rich stay rich and most of the poor stay poor. The odds of your going from poor to rich are about the same as playing the lottery. Also ever hear of any of the rich Wall Street bankers being brought up on charges for the near economic collapse of 2008? Jon Stewert's segment put it best I think, " How the F#@k is it that Martha Stewart Went to Jail". Our laws, government, and system favor the rich. It is run by them.

I agree: rich people shouldn't go to prison if they give money to Democrats.

This is completely unscientific experiment and typical of hatchet jobs involving class warfare. SES "correlates" to 'ethical' behavior. What a load of shit!

First off, lets find a common ground on what constitutes 'ethical' behavior. We can't right? I don't consider cutting someone off in traffic under most circumstances wrong at all. The tools who did these studies evidently do. I hold doors open for people less than 5 steps behind me and I see a lot of people don't do that.

Second, how do they actually know you they were targeting the correct focus group? The "researchers" got sloppy on that one and assumed based on car types. I see social climbers that get BMWs to make it seem like they are rich and they are not.

News flash! There are assholes in every economic range. There are also selfless persons in every economic range too.

I am for research but this should not have been granted funds for this garbage.

It would be interesting to see if the more aggressive driving resulted in more accidents. In my rather unscientific experience, highly successful individuals tend to be wealthy and successful at other things in life as well. Better diet, exercise, etc. Could it be that wealthy people are better drivers and don't need to leave themselves as large of a margin for error?

For one thing, I would assume that wealthier people have longer commutes. In theory, this should make them better drivers. Few people drive 80 minutes to work at 7-eleven. However skilled professionals often drive that far. During my regular commutes I get rather impatient, having driven the same road thousands of times and having got a lot of practice navigating every possible obstacle, including pedestrians. Despite driving in a manner that some would view as aggressive and dangerous, I would bet that I pose less of a risk to other people and property than a slow moving, timid and less skilled driver.

All speculation of course. I would love to see more research on this topic. Thanks for the interesting article Ars!

He found wizdom in his older days. He's in a kind of a unique situation actually. He has so much money he no longer needs to actively make more, or protect what he's got. It's just there for him.

I think it's a bit early to be certain about this. My initial impression (not research, just my impression) is that what he is doing is building tax shelters to protect his wealth. This may be wrong, but it's where I start.

The idea of judging people's SES by the car they drive destroys a lot of their credibility in my eyes.

This was my very first thought. A lot of people buy a car they can't really afford BECAUSE it's a status symbol. People want to appear to be in a higher SES than they really are (it's part of why people are so obsessed with celebrities, because following their every move makes it feel more like you're in the same SES bracket). This is the same reason why the one that depends on self reporting of their SES is also useless. Without actually reading the original material, I can't comment on the others (how do you measure SES anyways?).

The fact that those studies were included makes me highly suspect of the author's conclusion, as well as the other studies included.

He found wizdom in his older days. He's in a kind of a unique situation actually. He has so much money he no longer needs to actively make more, or protect what he's got. It's just there for him.

I think it's a bit early to be certain about this. My initial impression (not research, just my impression) is that what he is doing is building tax shelters to protect his wealth. This may be wrong, but it's where I start.

Like the guy who marries the woman who loves him before having money, judging the actions of the man after he's made his wealth is rather difficult. Is he doing it because of the good it will do, because it will provide him a sense of accomplishment in life, because it will make him look good (to neighbors, to history)? Could be more than one of these but trying to discern intention and character is best left to those situations where he only had a little and still gave some of it away. Did Gates ever have only a little money? I thought he was born rather well-to-do.

I'm content to see what good his money will do without trying to gauge his character from the charity.

This is completely unscientific experiment and typical of hatchet jobs involving class warfare. SES "correlates" to 'ethical' behavior. What a load of shit!

First off, lets find a common ground on what constitutes 'ethical' behavior. We can't right? I don't consider cutting someone off in traffic under most circumstances wrong at all. The tools who did these studies evidently do. I hold doors open for people less than 5 steps behind me and I see a lot of people don't do that.

Second, how do they actually know you they were targeting the correct focus group? The "researchers" got sloppy on that one and assumed based on car types. I see social climbers that get BMWs to make it seem like they are rich and they are not.

News flash! There are assholes in every economic range. There are also selfless persons in every economic range too.

I am for research but this should not have been granted funds for this garbage.

I go to the said coffee shop sometimes. It is just off the freeway. The parking lot is filled with expensive cars. They are parked sideways, across, diagonally.... whichever way but in between the lines. There are often Big Ass SUVs parked just outside the shop in the driveway and thus blocking everyone from leaving the parking lot until the occupants get their drinks and get back to the car.

I see this not sometimes. Not often. But all the time. This behavior is in stark contrast to nearby Bellevue and Kirkland, themselves an upper middle class neighborhoods, but not filthy rich. They know how to park outside a coffee shop.

None of those parking shenanigans are traffic violations. There is no ticket. They do it because they don't give a shit. Plain and simple.

This is actually pretty hilarious. And I've seen similar phenomena in other big cities. One of my favourites is the "I'm only stepping in for a few minutes," as they double park next to existing illegally parked cars to make their morning coffee run. Three lanes of critical urban artery reduced to the capacity of a residential side street. It's always a big SUV or luxury sedan. The working stiffs at least have the courtesy to block an alley instead.

Of course it does. How do you think they got rich in the first place? If you're going to say "hard work," you can bet that at least some of that hard work involved screwing someone else over in the process.

Either that, or a case of "screw the rules, I've got money!"

What's interesting is that someone had to do actual research to arrive at this conclusion.

The idea of judging people's SES by the car they drive destroys a lot of their credibility in my eyes.

This was my very first thought. A lot of people buy a car they can't really afford BECAUSE it's a status symbol. People want to appear to be in a higher SES than they really are (it's part of why people are so obsessed with celebrities, because following their every move makes it feel more like you're in the same SES bracket). This is the same reason why the one that depends on self reporting of their SES is also useless. Without actually reading the original material, I can't comment on the others (how do you measure SES anyways?).

The fact that those studies were included makes me highly suspect of the author's conclusion, as well as the other studies included.

The less paranoid way to phrase this would be "limited conclusions can be drawn due to imperfect availability of data".

But yeah, i agree with you that someone's automobile isn't necessarily a good indicator of their SES. I live on the edge of a Pittsburgh getto. There are quite a few people in the getto who drive better cars than the wealthier middle class people just outside the getto. It seems that there is a subset of poor people that flaunt what little money they have with fancy cars and clothing. Yep, there are blinged out luxury cars sitting in front of partly boarded up rentals.